Results: first and foremost, when it came to the question(s) of loneliness, and the prevalence of loneliness as measured by the UCLA Loneliness Scale, Version 3, "23–31% of participants reported experiencing any of these feelings ‘some of the time’, and 5–7% reported feeling them ‘often’." Sex/gender and socio-economic status did not seem to show any statistically significant relationship to reports on loneliness.

In terms of possible or actual psychopathology, we are told that: "Lonelier 18 year-olds were more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for depression, anxiety, ADHD [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder], conduct disorder, alcohol and cannabis dependence, to have self-harmed, and to have attempted suicide." Depression and anxiety came out with the strongest *association* in relation to loneliness, and insofar as the 'attempted suicide' bit, I'm wondering whether it may tie into other recent quite shocking findings (see here). Researchers also noted that: "lonelier individuals engaged in less day-to-day physical activity and were more likely to be daily smokers."

Whilst realising that the various associations mentioned in the context of loneliness do not necessarily tie directly into loneliness (e.g. loneliness does not necessarily 'cause' anxiety and depression or indeed, vice-verse), these are important results. They add to a bank of peer-reviewed research which suggests that loneliness - chronic loneliness - is probably not great for anyone (see here). They also observe that increasing social contact with others, whilst not without benefits, is not necessarily all that can be done to combat this state and it's rather negative correlations.

Wednesday, 23 May 2018

Yes, I'm yet again talking about pregnancy paracetamol (acetaminophen) use and offspring developmental outcomes on this blog (see here and see here for other discussions on this topic). As I mentioned on another recent blogging occasion, the news regarding pregnancy paracetamol use and offspring outcomes seems to be getting worse and worse, as associations galore keep appearing in the peer-reviewed science arena. Of course one has to be a little cautious about the nature of the studies that are emerging (i.e. observational, not readily designed to look at 'cause-and-effect') but the volume of research is growing at a significant pace potentially suggestive of something to see.

Now we have the results of a "Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis of Cohort Studies" published by Reem Masarwa and colleagues [1] on the topic of pregnancy paracetamol use and "the risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) in the offspring of women exposed to acetaminophen during pregnancy." All that meta-analysis stuff means that authors boiled down the current, existing peer-reviewed research into some sort of coherent whole. Their paper also comes complete with some lay media attention too (see here).

The findings? Well, taking into account various studies published "up to January 2017" and including some "132,738 mother and child pairs and with a follow-up period of 3-11 years", you probably won't be surprised to here that prolonged paracetamol use during pregnancy did seem to increase the risk of ADHD and/or autism in offspring to the tune of about 20-30% compared with those who did not take such medicine during pregnancy. That's not an unimportant percentage in anyone's book.

Reiterating the observational nature of the studies reviewed and boiled down (in a statistical sense) by Masarwa et al and the need for further investigations on things like possible mechanisms and indeed, whether the conditions for which paracetamol as pain relief was being taken *might* exert an effect on offspring risk, the results add to the concern. Much like other areas where various pregnancy medications are seemingly being implicated in relation to offspring outcome (see here and see here) such findings reiterate the importance of the nine months that made us and the need for much more sound research on this topic...

Based on their following a small-ish group of patients diagnosed with "either Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Functional Diarrhea (FDr) or Functional Constipation (FC) who underwent FMT for the treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms and observation of psychiatric symptoms" authors report results before said poo(p) transplant and after 4 weeks based on ratings on various instruments pertinent to the presentation of depression and anxiety. Alongside "intestinal microbiota were measured" with a particular focus on the level of diversity of species that were present in pre- and post-FMT samples. I might also mention at this point, how something like IBS is not without it's own 'psychological' correlates as per other research (see here and see here).

Following an 'open-trial' methodology and including only a "small sample size with no control group", researchers reported some significant improvements in relation to those depression and anxiety symptom scores for some. Importantly too, they noted that potential FMT effects on mood seemed to be independent of effects on "gastrointestinal symptom change." Similarly: "There was a significant correlation between baseline Shannon index and HAM-D [Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression] score, and a correlation between Shannon index change and HAM-D improvement after FMT." This suggests that bacterial diversity might be something to look at as potentially explaining the psychological effects of FMT.

Reiterating that the Kurokawa findings are preliminary and hence, require quite a lot more further (independent) study, I find this topic to be an interesting one. Although there may be some 'consumer resistance' to the idea of FMT, for some people, this type of intervention is nothing short of life-saving (see here). The idea that a similar type of transplant *might* also hold some benefits for conditions/labels outside of something like Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) infection has already been noted in the peer-reviewed science literature (see here and see here for examples), including conditions characterised by behaviour and psychology. This alongside a growing interest in how mood and temperament might have some important connection to those trillions of wee beasties (the gut microbiome) that call us all home (see here). We'll see where this goes...

Monday, 21 May 2018

I'm not going to formulate some sort of mammoth, long-read post on the paper by Christie Welch and colleagues [1] but I did want to bring their findings to your attention. My reasoning: the authors include a quite 'under-represented' group (see here) when it comes to the public view of the autism spectrum: those who "have severe autism and are minimally verbal."

Presenting the results of a qualitative study whereby "three memoirs written by youths who have severe autism and are minimally verbal were examined using inductive thematic analysis", authors observed several important themes emerging. Principal among them: "regarding the youths' concern that the way they are perceived from the outside does not match the people they are on the inside."

"These youths emphasize concepts of embodiment and physical control as central to their experiences of autism" said Welch et al, as the message seems to be that more should be done to 'tackle' these experiences and ensuring that sweeping generalisations about language use or non-use for example, are not seen as a proxy for cognitive and intellectual abilities. Just because someone cannot speak verbally, does not mean that they have nothing to say, and vice-verse.

I'm careful not to fall into the trap of 'autism severity' on the basis of the Welch findings, where terms like 'high' and 'low' functioning unduly simplify people in a binary fashion and seemingly without regard for the complexity of how autism affects various aspects of a person's life. I do however like the idea that more effort needs to go into things like the development of communication systems for those who are minimally verbal; both for clinical and research purposes but perhaps more importantly, day-to-day purposes, given also some catastrophic examples where communication issues have severely impacted on autistic lives (see here and see here).

And to the question of 'how common is 'minimally verbal' in the context of autism', well, another recent paper [2] has come up with an estimate: about a third...

The remote diagnosing of psychiatric and behavioural disorders is a particular bugbear of mine. It's something that autism research and practice in particular has had to endure for quite a few years, as a volley of historical figures for example, were revealed to be supposedly autistic. Such musings also add a temporal aspect to proceedings.

So how did the the authors and the lay media arrive at such a conclusion?

Well, first and foremost Spikins et al did not say that the makers of such early art were 'autistic'. They focused on autistic traits, and in particular the idea of an "extreme local processing bias" or attention to detail trait that seems to accompany the diagnosis of autism (for some). Importantly, they note that: "Local processing bias is common in autism but also seen in individuals without autism" and "‘Autistic traits’ in Upper Palaeolithic art do not necessarily signify the work of an individual with autism." So, from the outset, we can probably do away with that rather sweeping [diagnostic evidence-free] media headline on Ice Age cave artists being autistic.

Quite a lot of the Spikins paper focuses on what's been observed - directly observed - in some of those diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum when it comes to artistic talent, which is then 'extrapolated' to such prehistoric artists. This includes some rather nice pictures drawn by individuals with autism who expressed a "marked local processing bias" compared with age-matched drawings from non-autistic individuals. We're also told that the use of the (very) famous 'are you autistic?' self-report screener that is the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) by the authors, revealed that "individuals with a very high autism quotient (AQ) of 32 or above, which is taken as indicative of an autism spectrum condition within a population sample were statistically much more likely than neurotypical individuals (i.e. those with a lower AQ score) to have an interest in and experience of art outside of any school curriculum." 'Indicative of an autism spectrum condition'? Well, we'll see. And I still have some problems with what comes under the term 'neurotypical' too (see here).

Of course you can perhaps see the issue here. Take one block of 'evidence', some of it based on individual case reports and some of it based on an 'autism' screener that probably picks up an awful lot more than 'just autism' (see here and see here and see here for examples), correlate and correlate some more and hey presto, we reach the conclusion that the art must have been drawn by someone expressing an autistic trait or even someone who was autistic.

A testable hypothesis? No, it's not. We don't know who drew those paintings or made those carvings. We don't know anything about them personally and we certainly don't have any evidence about whether they expressed any significant autistic or any other kind of trait. For all we know, the paintings or carvings could also have been made by more than one person; a family or group effort if you like. We just don't know because, well, those artistic depictions were made thousands and thousands of years ago before the tools that help us record history were even a twinkle in the cosmic eye.

I don't want to come across as poo-pooing such 'observations' stressing how autistic traits are not necessarily a new thing because, in essence, I do think that some autistic traits have probably been with us from our earliest evolutionary times (see here). I say that on the basis that the traits of autism are not some 'magical' behaviours that are completely distant from the human experience; more likely they represent the extremes of what is typically seen in the general population at particular ages and stages and environments. Taking such logic back in an evolutionary sense, one can for example see how something like an 'attention to detail' could be a good survival skill if your life depended on it.

But I do think one has to be very, very cautious about such research and any 'feelgood' factor it might attempt to generate or put forward. Autism, as a clinical definition, only really came about in the last hundred years or so, and for many, any benefits derived from a 'marked local processing bias' have to be balanced with the possible downsides to such directed focus (e.g. increased rumination and anxiety). I'd also add in that the idea that Palaeolithic Art (or indeed, any kind of art) merely comes about as a result of traits that are noted in the context of psychopathology is a pretty dangerous path to take. It risks boiling down human efforts such as creativity and artistic skill to nothing more than diagnostic characteristics and feeds into narratives such as the "creativity is akin to insanity" headlines of not so long ago (see here). As I've said before, people are so much more than the labels they've received or the diagnostic term they identify with.

In short, Palaeolithic art is interesting and adds to our understanding of how we evolved. But it simply cannot provide an accurate window on any states and traits of those who created it...

On this particular blogging occasion I'm heading into the findings reported by Jean Golding and colleagues [1] who utilised this fabulous research resource to examine whether "prenatal exposure from total maternal blood Hg [mercury] in the first half of pregnancy is associated with the risk of autism or of extreme levels of autistic traits." They concluded that there were "no adverse effect of prenatal total blood Hg on autism or autistic traits provided the mother ate fish."

OK, mention of the heavy metal mercury in the context of autism and/or autistic traits can be a touchy subject for some. I'm talking about the various 'discussions' that have taken place both in the lay and peer-reviewed science arenas concerned with the exposure patterns relevant to mercury in the context of autism (see here and see here). This, on the basis that mercury exists in several 'forms', and those different forms have different potential exposure routes.

Golding et al relied on some of the gold-standard analytical methods for the analysis of whole blood Hg collected in the most part "at < 18 weeks gestation": "inductively coupled plasma dynamic reaction cell mass spectrometry (ICP-DRC-MS)." Variations on this method - ICP mass spectrometry - have been previously reported on in the context of mercury and autism research (see here and see here). Alongside, they looked at measured levels of mercury in relation to various behavioural and other variable groupings: "(1) direct comparison of 45 pregnancies resulting in children with diagnosed autism from a population of 3840, (2) comparison of high scores on each of the four autistic traits within the population at risk (n~2800), and (3) indirect measures of association of these outcomes with proxies for increased Hg levels such as frequency of fish consumption and exposure to dental amalgam (n > 8000)." They however cautioned that: "Although we accounted for several important confounders which are relevant to Hg levels and autism, the possibility of unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out." I can think of one potential confounder that was not seemingly included in their list outside of fish consumption and dental amalgams but ho-hum...

Alongside their overall 'no relationship' results, a few other details are noteworthy. First: "all correlations indicated that with increasing levels of [maternal] mercury, the signs of autism [in offspring] were slightly less, but none were statistically significant." Interesting idea - higher maternal levels of mercury during pregnancy 'correlates' with 'less' autistic traits in offspring in childhood - but to reiterate, not statistically significant. Second was that 'provided the mother ate fish' detail attached to the main findings. So: "we have shown a differential relationship between the social cognition trait and prenatal Hg exposure, such that there was a significant difference in apparently protective effects contingent upon whether the mother ate fish." The authors opine as to what it is about fish consumption that might "counteract any possible adverse cognitive and behavioral differences that may be caused by prenatal exposure to Hg" including "the beneficial components of fish such as the omega-3 fatty acids, iodine, and vitamins D and B2." This in the context that omega-3 fatty acids have some research form in relation to autism (see here) as does the sunshine vitamin/hormone that is vitamin D (see here).

One has to be slightly careful with the Golding results given the focus on prenatal exposure, and prenatal exposure at only one early point in pregnancy, as well as also not actually looking at mercury levels in the children themselves. The current results say nothing for example, about any possible direct or acquired role for mercury in relation to autism as per other findings published during the same period [2]. Neither do they offer any additional information on the idea that exposure issues to such heavy metals may be only one part of the story, and that the biological processes involved in removing such heavy metals may be somehow perturbed in relation to some autism (see here).

But... set within the idea that prenatal mercury exposure may be linked to the 'etiology' of at least some autism, the Golding findings represent pretty strong evidence suggestive of no connection.

Well the results of the "phase 2 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial" on KPAX002 published by Jose Montoya and colleagues [1] that, from an intention-to-treat point of view, reported no significant statistical difference in self-reported group scores of fatigue and other measures between active treatment and a placebo. In keeping with the phase 2 label attached to the trial - looking at both initial clinical results and also any side- or adverse effects - authors reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of reported adverse effects between KPAX002 and a placebo over the 12 weeks of study. First, do no harm and all that.

The Montoya paper is open-access so readers can see for themselves how things were done and the details of the results. I however, want to highlight a few points that I thought were important:

First, the authors acknowledge the "unexpectedly positive results" observed the last time around [2] that led to this more rigorous trial. Personally, I don't think there was anything too unexpected about those pilot study results, given the methodological issues typically associated with a pilot study. Y'know, a small un-blinded participant group taking part in a trial using a preparation that they probably will have been told *might* affect various symptoms they experience or themselves possibly 'exposed' to other anecdotal reports of good effects. That and no control group, no placebo included and importantly, no objective measure of fatigue (a real issue when it comes to quite a bit ME/CFS research) and well, I'd be surprised if something significant didn't come up during the initial findings. And just in case you think I'm being all 'high-and-mighty' about this, I've published using the same type of pilot study methodology before, including some of the same inherent issues (see here).

Second, I'm a little bit disappointed that the authors weren't more forthright in how the results weren't statistically significant on any and all measures included for study. I say this on the basis of both the commercial take on the results (see here) and also sentences like: "The two groups demonstrating the most robust response to KPAX002 were subjects with more severe ME/CFS symptoms at baseline (P=0.086) and subjects suffering from both fatigue and pain (P=0.057)." Both those p-values (p being a measure of statistical significance) are above the [currently] recognised threshold for p equal to or less than 0.05, yet are listed as a 'robust response'. Even more, throughout the paper I note the words 'trend in favor of' being used, which some people might translate as being 'well, they were nearly statistically significant results'. I say this also bearing in mind that the final participant numbers - KPAX002 use = 48 and placebo = 57 - are not exactly facets of what one would call an under-powered study. I'm probably being a nit-picker here but like it or not, the [current] rules of science are the [current] rules of science.

Finally, once again, I note that under the heading 'Disclosure of conflict of interest', the word 'none' appears as per the last research occasion [2]. Personally, and with no malice intended, I would have listed the detail that at least one of the authors is an employee of the manufacturer of KPXA002 given the affiliation details and email address for further correspondence provided on the paper. Again, it's a small detail but one that should nevertheless be acknowledged. I would have also like to have seen a little more on who funded the trial too and especially who funded the provision of the KPAX002 supplement for trial purposes. I reiterate that there is no malice is intended in saying that, but readers require such details.

I don't want to come down too hard on these results because it's obvious that quite a bit of work has gone into their production. I'm also not closing the door on the idea that future research with a more targeted group with ME/CFS might not produce something a little more statistically significant with regards to KPAX002. But for now, the answer must be that controlled study of the formulation did not meet clinical endpoints in a statistical sense, and hence KPAX002 cannot be said to be superior to placebo for CFS/ME. With all the setbacks that the label(s) ME/CFS has had to endure down the years with regards to the 'psychobabble' explanations (see here) and other 'eureka' moments (see here), the Montoya findings are bad news for patients yet again. But, they also should represent a further call to re-double research efforts; particularly when it comes to the biology of the condition(s) and onward the acceleration of research for interventions for this quality of life draining condition (see here).

Like what you see here? Help us make a difference to the lives of people with autism @ ESPA Research

Twitter Feed

Translate

Questioning Answers

About Me

I have been involved in autism research for more years than I care to remember. My Questioning Answers blog (http://questioning-answers.blogspot.com/) is a place to describe and discuss various research into autism spectrum and related conditions. My Gutness Gracious Me blog (http://gutness-gracious-me.blogspot.com/) is for discussions on various gastrointestinal research. I make no recommendations, I am not giving any medical advice, I am not formulating any specific opinions and do not want to get into any ethical, political or religious debates. I am not trying to change anyone's opinions, views, beliefs or anything else. These are purely blogs about science and research in autism and a few other interesting things. Any posts I make are my own opinions and not reflective of any organisation I am affiliated to. Keep in mind that science deals with probabilities not absolutes.

ABOUT AUTISM SPECTRUM CONDITIONS

Autism or autism spectrum conditions describe several presentations characterised by core issues with social affect and stereotyped or repetitive actions. Diagnosis is made by observation and analysis of developmental history. These are heterogeneous conditions which can carry various co-morbidities and whilst described as life-long are affected by age and maturation. Autism means different things to different people. To some it means a need for life-long support. To others it is part of the varied tapestry of humanity. To all it means a need to foster a welcoming society with appropriate support and opportunities.